


Discuss the figure of fatherhood in two plays.

by Litsetaure



Category: Essays - Fandom, Greek Tragedy
Genre: Commentary, Essays
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2013-07-11
Updated: 2013-07-11
Packaged: 2017-12-19 04:05:14
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 4,256
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/879259
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Litsetaure/pseuds/Litsetaure
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff"><p>Bibliography</p>
<p> </p>
<p>•	Aeschylus: ‘Agamemnon’, translated by Richmond Lattimore, taken from ‘The Complete Greek Tragedies – Aeschylus 1; the Oresteia; Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers and The Eumenides’, edited by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, published by the University of Chicago Press, 1953.</p>
<p>•	Allan, A. and Storey, I.C.: ‘A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama’, published by Blackwell Publishing, 2005.</p>
<p>•	Aristotle: ‘Poetics’, translated by Malcolm Heath, published by Penguin Classics, 1996.</p>
<p>•	Baldock, M.: ‘Greek Tragedy, An Introduction’, published by Bristol Classical Press, first published 1989, re-printed 1993 and 1995.</p>
<p>•	Bremer, J.M.: ‘Hamartia – Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy’, published by A.M. Hakkert, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1968.</p>
<p>•	Collins, C.W.: ‘Sophocles’, published William Blackwood and Sons, 1871.</p>
<p>•	Easterling, P.E. (ed): ‘The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy’, published Cambridge University Press, 2005.</p>
<p>•	Euripides: ‘Hippolytus’, translated by David Grene, taken from ‘The Complete Greek Tragedies – Euripides 1’, edited by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, published by the University of Chicago Press, 1955.</p>
<p>•	Ferguson, J.: ‘A Companion to Greek Tragedy’, published by the University of Texas Press, 1972.</p>
<p>•	Mills, S.: ‘Euripides: Hippolytus’, published by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2002.</p>
<p>•	Morwood, J.: ‘The Plays of Euripides’, published by Bristol Classical Press, 2004.</p>
<p>•	Mossman, J. (ed.): ‘Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Euripides’, published by Oxford University Press, 2003.</p>
<p>•	Scodel, R.: ‘Sophocles’, Twayne Publishers, 1984.</p>
<p>•	Segal, C.: ‘Interpreting Greek Tragedy: Myth, Poetry, Text’, Cornell University Press, 1986.</p>
<p>•	Segal, E. (ed.): ‘Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy’, published by Oxford University Press, 1983.</p>
<p>•	Sophocles: ‘The Three Theban Plays’, translated by Robert Fagles, published by Penguin Classics, 1984.</p>
<p>•	Stinton, T.C.W.: ‘Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy’, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.</p>
<p>•	Walker, J.: ‘Theseus and Athens’, published by Oxford University Press, 1995.</p>
<p>•	Whallon, W.: ‘Problem and Spectacle – Studies in the Oresteia’, published by Heidelberg, 1980.</p>
<p>•	Winnington-Ingram, R.P.: ‘Studies in Aeschylus’, published by Cambridge University Press, 1983.</p></blockquote>





	Discuss the figure of fatherhood in two plays.

** Discuss the figure of fatherhood in two plays. **

****

Critical Analysis

 

**Creon** : So, men our age, we’re to be lectured, are we? – schooled by a boy his age? 

**Haemon** : Only in what is right. But if I seem young, look less in my years and more to what I do.

**Creon** : Do? Is admiring rebels an achievement? 

**Haemon** : I’d never suggest that you admire treason. 

**Creon** : Oh? – isn’t that just the sickness that’s attacked her? 

**Haemon** : The whole city of Thebes denies it, to a man. 

**Creon** : And is Thebes about to tell me how to rule? 

**Haemon** : Now, you see? Who’s talking like a child?

**Creon** : Am I to rule this land for others – or myself? 

**Haemon** : It’s no city at all, owned by one man alone. 

**Creon** : What? The city _is_ the king’s – that’s the law! 

**Haemon** : What a splendid king you’d make of a desert island – you and you alone. 

**Creon** : This boy, I do believe, is fighting on her side, the woman’s side. 

**Haemon** : If you are a woman, yes – my concern is all for you. 

**Creon** : Why, you degenerate – bandying accusations, threatening me with justice, your own father!

**Haemon** : I see my father offending justice – wrong. 

**Creon** : Wrong? To protect my royal rights? 

**Haemon** : Protect your rights? When you trample down the honour of the gods? 

**Creon** : You, you soul of corruption, rotten through – woman’s accomplice! 

**Haemon** : That may be, but you will never find me accomplice to a criminal. 

**Creon** : That’s what _she_ is, and every word you say is a blatant appeal for her – 

**Haemon** : And you, and me, and the gods beneath the earth. 

**Creon** : You will never marry her, not while she’s alive. 

**Haemon** : Then she will die...but her death will kill another. 

**Creon** : What, brazen threats? You go too far! 

**Haemon** : What threat? Combating your empty, mindless judgments with a word? 

**Creon** : You’ll suffer for your sermons, you and your empty wisdom!

**Haemon** : If you weren’t my father, I’d say you were insane. 

**Creon** : Don’t flatter me with Father – you woman’s slave! 

**Haemon** : You really expect to fling abuse at me and not receive the same?

**Creon** : Is that so! Now, by heaven, I promise you, you’ll pay – taunting, insulting me! Bring her out, that hateful – she’ll die now, here, in front of his eyes, beside her groom!

**Haemon** : No, no, she will never die beside me – don’t delude yourself. And you will never see me, never set eyes on my face again. Rage your heart out, rage with friends who can stand the sight of you.                  

 (Sophocles: Antigone, lines 813-859)

 

This episode in Sophocles’ ‘Antigone’, between Creon, King of Thebes, and his last surviving son, Haemon, gives a strong indication of one of the great causes of tragedy in the ancient world. This is the idea of a lack of understanding between a father and a son, because of clashes in opinion or thought, and through a stubbornness of nature, which is what not only brings about this lack of relationship and understanding, but also a large proportion of the tragedy that springs from it. In this case, the tragedy set in motion is a double tragedy, that of Haemon, who will die an unhappy death, hating his father and, ultimately, that of Creon, who will lose everything and everyone he has cared about.          

On the surface, this passage is about a conflict of ideas about Antigone, who Creon believes is a traitor to the State as he describes the treason that is the act of her burying her brother as ‘the sickness that’s attacked her’[1], but who Haemon believes has acted nobly and rightly. However, reading underneath the words allows the reader and the audience to explore the deeper theme of how costly a lack of understanding between father and son can be, which is also a theme illustrated similarly in Euripides’ ‘Hippolytus’, with the idea of the relationship between Theseus and Hippolytus, which is shown by the fact that Theseus unquestioningly believes Phaedra’s accusation against Hippolytus, showing that he has never been entirely trusting of his son, and only realises his mistake at the end of the play when it is too late. This is not to say that Creon is distrustful towards Haemon in the same way that Theseus is towards Hippolytus,  but instead that he is so consumed by the desire to appear as a good king that he finds himself putting the affairs of the State above everything else, including his family, which is why he ‘fails both as a father and a civic leader’.[2]           

Creon is an unusual figure in Greek tragedy, because he appears to simply be the ‘typical tragic hero who collaborates in his own downfall’[3], however it is clear that his character is not as simple as this. He is a man under an immense amount of pressure because he wants to be a good king and he knows that everything he does on his first day in office will dictate what the people think of him and it is this which makes him ignore other viewpoints and brings about the clash with his son in something familiar in Greek tragedy, as ‘two strong wills inevitably clash – the son eager and impassioned, the father hardened by duty’[4] as is shown by his words to Haemon ‘the city _is_ the king’s – that’s the law!’[5], a view sharply contrasted by Haemon, who is very much on Antigone’s side, as he fights for justice and for what he believes is right, despite the fact that he ‘declares that no marriage means more to him than his father’[6], earlier in the play, with the words ‘No marriage could ever mean more to me than you’[7]. This is not to suggest that Haemon is a hypocritical figure, but instead it shows Creon’s inability to accept what he believes is an action against his own rules, or his own inflexibility.           

It can be argued that Haemon is equally as inflexible as Creon in this passage, because he too refuses to back down on his beliefs that Antigone has done nothing wrong, and it is this which destroys any possibility of a father and son relationship between them. While it is true to say that Haemon is clearly on Antigone’s side, he does not always make this entirely obvious at the start, as he does not simply argue her case insultingly to Creon, but instead he tries to use rational and tactful rhetoric to make him be flexible rather than firing personal insults on his father’s judgement, even if he believes it to be wrong. This shows an element of flexibility on Haemon’s part which is missing in his father, as he is capable of calm negotiation when he knows that hot-headed impetuosity will achieve nothing, but it also goes a long way to illustrating the emotional conflict with his father, as Creon is unable to see the situation from his son’s perspective. With his words ‘Why, you degenerate – bandying accusations, threatening me with justice, your own father!’[8], Creon is showing that he feels Haemon is not only being disloyal to him as a king, but also as a son, once again showing the inflexibility which makes a functional relationship with Haemon almost impossible, and which ultimately brings about the tragedy of the play. This having been said, Haemon has faults too, which are exploited in his later words to Creon, as he tells him ‘Then [Antigone] will die...but her death will kill another’[9] and, even more powerfully, with his last words to him ‘And you will never see me, never set eyes on my face...Rage your heart out, rage with friends who can stand the sight of you’[10], which shows that, for all his earlier tact and rational speech earlier on in the scene, Haemon can be impulsive and insulting as he rages at Creon before leaving, his final words to his father later ringing true.           

What is really interesting about the characters of Creon and Haemon in this passage, apart from the evidence that a functional relationship as father and son is impossible between them, is that, despite the fact that Creon has the authority over Thebes as king, it is actually Haemon who comes off better and has a greater sense of authority here, as he has the ability to be rational in the face of adversity which Creon appears to lack, meaning that Haemon comes across in a more mature light, giving an idea that, if he were a ruler and a father, he would be able to balance the two roles much better than Creon himself does.

~*~ 

A figure of fatherhood is a crucial element in Greek drama, but especially in tragedy, as he can be used to illustrate the principles of tragedy according to Aristotle, which are that tragedy is ‘an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete and possesses magnitude’[11] in some cases by contradicting them. I will be focusing on will be Euripides’ ‘Hippolytus’, where I will be exploring the character of Theseus as a father figure towards Hippolytus, and Aeschylus’ ‘Agamemnon’, where I will be exploring the characters of Agamemnon and of Thyestes, the father of Aegisthus, to show how a father figure can also have a strong influence by being absent and also to show the conflict between fatherhood and kingship, which is especially shown by Agamemnon.            

The major father figure in ‘Hippolytus’ is the character of Theseus, whose son is Hippolytus. The audience first learns this from Aphrodite’s speech, as she describes Hippolytus with these words: 

> ‘Hippolytus, son of Theseus by the Amazon,
> 
> pupil of holy Pittheus’[12]

Throughout the play, Euripides makes it very clear that Theseus is the dominant figure of fatherhood. It is, however, Theseus’ attitude towards fatherhood and towards Hippolytus, as well as his relationship with his son, which goes a long way towards the tragedy at the end of the play.          

Hippolytus is an interesting figure in the play for several reasons, one of which is the contrast between himself and Theseus. Hippolytus is very much an ‘ephebic’ figure, or a young man who has not quite reached adulthood. It is clear that he passes his time with appropriate pursuits for such young men. The first time he appears in the play, he has just been hunting and he has also made a garland for the statue of Artemis, a goddess of hunting. This is extremely important because, like many of Hippolytus’ traits, it shows how he is ‘detached from human relations and unchanging’[13], not only in that he is showing no signs of moving out of the hunting phase into any other phase – in other words showing his unwillingness to mature – but also in showing one of his other major character traits. Hippolytus is chaste, in the same way that the goddess Artemis was chaste, and he intends to prolong his chastity, because he shuns marriage. Hippolytus’ chastity is one of the factors which brings about his tragedy, because he is punished by Aphrodite, ‘not simply because his way of life has no place for sex, but because he rejects it and rejects the worship of the goddess’[14]. It also shows a huge contrast with the figure of his father, Theseus, who ‘was known for a polygamous love life’[15], even though, after Phaedra’s death, he honours her memory when he says:

> ‘There is no woman in the world who shall come to this house
> 
> and sleep by my side.’[16] 

It can be argued that this idea of Theseus renouncing his desire for women is a device used by Euripides to make him appear to have more in common with his chaste son Hippolytus. However, I believe that this is not the case, since, as the play progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that Theseus and Hippolytus have few or no common features and Euripides is using this device to show that, despite Theseus renouncing his polygamy in the face of his wife’s death does nothing to give him similarity with Hippolytus, who refuses marriage and sex completely.           

Another facet to Theseus’ character which shows him to be completely at odds with Hippolytus is his attitude towards the ‘polis’, or the city. It has been argued that Theseus and Hippolytus are so at odds here because they both take their roles to the extreme. The audience can see, in the ‘agon’[17] speeches after Theseus finds Phaedra’s note after her death, how ‘Hippolytus is practically an anti-Theseus and between them lies the world of the polis [as] Theseus exceeds the status of a citizen [whereas] Hippolytus never quite attains it’[18], as Hippolytus actually says that he is: 

> ‘…no man to speak with vapid, precious skill
> 
> before a mob, although among my equals
> 
> and in a narrow circle I am held
> 
> not unaccomplished in the eloquent art.’[19]           

In admitting that he does not make speeches, Hippolytus once again shows himself as an outsider who does not take part in democracy. He also presents a strong contrast to his father, as Theseus is a public figure in the polis, as he speaks as if he is speaking to a public assembly, especially with the words: 

> ‘Look at this man! He was my son and he
> 
> dishonours my wife’s bed! By the dead’s testimony
> 
> he’s clearly proved the vilest, foulest wretch…
> 
> show me your face; show it to me, your father.’[20] 

Theseus’ story in the ‘Hippolytus’ is a tragedy within a tragedy, as it shows the fall of a great figure in just one day. However, the tragedy stems from ‘Theseus being what Theseus was and a relationship (or rather a complete lack of relationship) between Theseus and Hippolytus’[21], which is because the two characters are so different. There are differences of opinion amongst critics about why Theseus immediately believes Phaedra. Some critics have argued that ‘by having Theseus instantly believe Phaedra, Euripides suggests that he has never entirely trusted his odd son’[22], whereas others argue that ‘Hippolytus [is] a man belonging to a world apart’[23] from the ‘polis’ and from what constitutes the average Greek male, which is what Theseus represents, whereas Theseus is the opposite to his son and so has never understood him. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the tragedy of Theseus, and also the tragedy of Hippolytus, stems from both these factors. It is Theseus’ inability to understand his son which leads to an inability to trust him the way a father should be expected to trust his son and this is what leads to their downfall. The lack of relationship between the two is emphasised by Theseus’ description of his confrontation with Sinis, a bandit he claims to have killed, and the idea of the rocks being ravaged by the sea[24], which ‘suggests the whole realm of cruelty and bitter experience… [is] in contrast to the innocence of [Theseus’] woods-and mountain-loving son’[25], which again emphasises their contrasting backgrounds and the lack of a relationship between them.           

The final scene of the play, when Hippolytus returns, bruised and battered, is an exceptionally poignant scene, as it shows the relationship between the father and the son as it should be. There are two strong Aristotelian concepts in this final scene between the two. The first is the idea of ‘recognition’, which comes when Theseus realises his ‘hamartia’ in cursing Hippolytus with the curse of Poseidon and also shows the tragedy of how ‘the prayers that become reality are the deadly ones’[26], although he realises his mistake when it is too late, which can also be seen as a sign that he is also realising the true role a father should have towards his son when it is too late. The second is the concept of a ‘peripeteia’, or a reversal, which means that when something happens that should have one effect, it has the opposite effect. In this case, Theseus was supposed to feel justice that his curse had worked, when in fact, when he realises the extremity of what has happened, he feels guilt and pain.

For his part, Hippolytus is able to absolve Theseus of blame before his death, as he tells his father:

> ‘No, for I free you from all guilt in this.’[27] 

Like Theseus, Hippolytus has also had a recognition, as he ‘rediscovers Theseus as a father’[28], in the same way that Theseus can now recognise Hippolytus as his son. Their character difference which made their relationship so disastrous will still be there, but they have now finally learned to accept the other for who he is, even though it is too late.           

One of the most intruiging aspects of the opening play of Aeschylus’ ‘Oresteia’ trilogy is the aspect concerning a figure of fatherhood. This is because, even without such a figure performing an active role in the play, the theme of fatherhood is extremely important and it comes across in several moments of the play in different ways.           

What is most interesting about this is the idea that a father figure is someone so powerful and influential that he does not have to be onstage constantly to draw the attention of the audience and, in some ways, dominate the action of the play. Indeed, the only male figure who could be regarded as being close to a father figure who is actually physically seen in the play is Agamemnon, yet even he does not appear until late into the action, yet he manages to dominate much of the action on the stage.           

In the ‘Agamemnon’, one of the greatest conflicts for a father who, like Agamemnon, is also a king and a warrior comes to the forefront of the play. This conflict is a conflict where the two different roles are set against each other and the character has different loyalties to the ‘polis’[29] and to the ‘oikos’[30] and is shown most poignantly by the choice that Agamemnon has to make before the Greek fleet can set sail for Troy where he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to placate the goddess Artemis so that the troops can set sail for Troy. The Chorus, when discussing this, initially show Agamemnon’s unwillingness to commit such an act with these words:

> ‘[Agamemnon’s] fate is angry if I disobey these,
> 
> but angry if I slaughter
> 
> this child, the beauty of my house,
> 
> with maiden blood shed staining
> 
> these father’s hands beside the altar.
> 
> What of these things goes now without disaster?’[31] 

Agamemnon’s instinct as a father with love for his daughter is being clearly illustrated by the Chorus as they tell that he does not want to sacrifice his daughter, but that he also feels that he has to set sail for Troy to preserve his reputation, effectively putting him in a situation where he cannot win, because he has great love for his daughter, but he knows that if he does not sacrifice her, he will not be able to sail for Troy, and he will also be committing the sin of ‘hubris’[32] if he goes against the will of Artemis. It is ironic, therefore, that, when he returns from Troy, he commits a similar hubris when he walks on the tapestries laid out for him by Clytemnestra. This, arguably, negates many of his fatherly instincts, because the hubris he sought not to commit when he sacrificed Iphigenia has been committed anyway.           

Agamemnon’s fatherly feelings are, however, set aside and he does sacrifice his daughter, in a way that the Chorus call ‘reckless in fresh cruelty’[33], which shows him not as a figure of fatherhood, but instead as a king and a warrior who is doing all that must be done in order to go to war: 

> ‘[Iphigenia’s] supplications and her cries of father
> 
> were nothing, nor the child’s lamentation
> 
> to kings passioned for battle.’[34] 

Through the Chorus’ words, the audience and the reader now see how Agamemnon’s paternal instincts have been repressed by his own and the other king’s passion for war. This shows him no longer as a figure of fatherhood, but instead as a kingly figure who partakes in battles and wars and again shows how the role of fatherhood and of a king come into conflict with each other.           

Some critics have argued that Agamemnon’s situation was such that he could not be to blame for his actions. In ‘Problem and Spectacle – Studies in the ‘Oresteia’, William Whallon states a theory that ‘Agamemnon is compliant, hesitant, vacillating before the altar’[35] and that he and Iphigenia were mere pawns in the game of destiny, thus absolving Agamemnon of blame for his actions, as if he went against the will of the gods, he would be guilty of hubris. However, other critics have argued to the contrary, arguing that ‘there is no intimation that Agamemnon was compelled by any god or spell to choose as he did’[36], a concept stated by N.G.L. Hammond, and quoted by Whallon, which implies that Agamemnon acted of his own free will. My opinion is that Agamemnon did not want to murder his daughter, but he also did not want to commit hubris, thereby angering the gods, so he put his paternal instincts aside and took on the mantle of a king and a warrior. In some ways, the rejection of his paternal feelings is his ‘hamartia’[37], which brings about his downfall.           

Another aspect of fatherhood that comes across in this play is the idea of a father as someone who should be avenged if they are killed unlawfully or if they were wronged when alive. Aeschylus brings this aspect across through the character of Aegisthus, the cousin of Agamemnon. Like Agamemnon, Aegisthus does not make his appearance until the late action of the play, but when he does appear, he immediately gives off an aura of a son wanting vengeance for his now dead father. This idea is especially shown with his words: 

> ‘For Atreus [Agamemnon’s] father, King of Argolis –
> 
> I tell you the clear story – drove my father forth,
> 
> Thyestes, his own brother, who had challenged him
> 
> in his king’s right – forth from his city and home.’[38] 

From the start, even when telling the legend of how his father was driven out of his home, Aegisthus already comes across as a son wanting to avenge the wrong done his father. Once again, a figure of fatherhood is very dominant and influential because of his absence and the effect it has on the characters and their actions.           

Now that Agamemnon is dead, Aegisthus believes that justice has been done and that he can: 

> ‘…..die in honour again, if die I must,
> 
> having seen him caught in the cords of his just punishment.’[39] 

Once again, Aegisthus is presented as the son wanting revenge on his father and he uses another figure of fatherhood, Agamemnon, to exact his revenge. This gives an idea of justice and of one figure of fatherhood dying for another. The interesting thing about this is that it is not Aegisthus who commits the murder, but instead it is Clytemnestra, meaning that ‘the agent of punishment is an adulterous wife, but one whose daughter has been cruelly sacrificed’[40], which adds to the idea of justice, and also presents Clytemnestra as an arguable figure of fatherhood, as she comes across in a very masculine and strong manner, which one could associate with a father figure. 

Therefore, the father figure is an interesting element in Greek drama as he shows, even in absence, what a powerful effect he can have on the action, as is shown in the ‘Agamemnon’ as well as relationships, or lack thereof, with his child, and how the absence of such a relationship can lead to a tragic outcome, as is shown by the character of Theseus in the ‘Hippolytus’.

 

* * *

[1] _Antigone_ ; line 819

[2] _The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy_ ; p.104

[3] _A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama_ ; p.252

[4]C.W. Collins _Sophocles_ ; p.85

[5] _Antigone_ ; line 825

[6] R. Scodel _Sophocles_ ; p.50

[7] _Antigone;_ line 711

[8] _Antigone_ ; lines 831-832

[9] _Antigone_ ; line 843

[10] _Antigone_ ; lines 856-859

[11] _Poetics_ – Tragedy: Definition and Analysis; p.10

[12] _Hippolytus_ ; lines 10-11

[13] Sophie Mills _Euripides: Hippolytus_ ; p.66

[14] _Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy_ ; p.177

[15] _Euripides: Hippolytus_ ; p.74

[16] _Hippolytus_ ; lines 860-861

[17] Long speeches in debate

[18] _Theseus and Athens_ ; p.118

[19] _Hippolytus_ ; lines 986-989

[20] _Hippolytus_ ; lines 942-947

[21] _Hippolytus: A Study in Causation_ taken from _Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Euripides_ ; p.210

[22] _Euripides: Hippolytus_ ; p.75

[23] _Hippolytus: A Study in Causation_ ; p.215

[24] See _Hippolytus_ ; lines 979-980

[25] _The Tragedy of Hippolytus: The Waters of Ocean and the Untouched Meadow_  taken from _Interpreting Greek Tragedy: Myth, Poetry, Text_ ; p.190

[26] _The Tragedy of the Hippolytus: The Waters of the Ocean and the Untouched Meadow_ ; p.197

[27] _Hippolytus_ ; line 1449

[28] _The Tragedy of the Hippolytus: The Waters of the Ocean and the Untouched Meadow_ ; p.211

[29] City

[30] Family

[31] _Agamemnon_ ; lines 206-211

[32] Excess pride in defying the will of the gods.

[33] _Agamemnon_ ; line 223

[34] _Agamemnon_ ; lines 227-230

[35] _Problem and Spectacle, Studies in the Oresteia_ ; p. 51

[36] _Problem and Spectacle, Studies in the Oresteia_ ; p.48

[37] Fatal error

[38] _Agamemnon_ ; lines 1583-1586

[39] _Agamemnon_ ; lines 1610-1611

[40] _Studies in Aeschylus_ ; p.76

**Author's Note:**

> Bibliography
> 
>  
> 
> • Aeschylus: ‘Agamemnon’, translated by Richmond Lattimore, taken from ‘The Complete Greek Tragedies – Aeschylus 1; the Oresteia; Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers and The Eumenides’, edited by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, published by the University of Chicago Press, 1953.
> 
> • Allan, A. and Storey, I.C.: ‘A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama’, published by Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
> 
> • Aristotle: ‘Poetics’, translated by Malcolm Heath, published by Penguin Classics, 1996.
> 
> • Baldock, M.: ‘Greek Tragedy, An Introduction’, published by Bristol Classical Press, first published 1989, re-printed 1993 and 1995.
> 
> • Bremer, J.M.: ‘Hamartia – Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy’, published by A.M. Hakkert, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1968.
> 
> • Collins, C.W.: ‘Sophocles’, published William Blackwood and Sons, 1871.
> 
> • Easterling, P.E. (ed): ‘The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy’, published Cambridge University Press, 2005.
> 
> • Euripides: ‘Hippolytus’, translated by David Grene, taken from ‘The Complete Greek Tragedies – Euripides 1’, edited by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, published by the University of Chicago Press, 1955.
> 
> • Ferguson, J.: ‘A Companion to Greek Tragedy’, published by the University of Texas Press, 1972.
> 
> • Mills, S.: ‘Euripides: Hippolytus’, published by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 2002.
> 
> • Morwood, J.: ‘The Plays of Euripides’, published by Bristol Classical Press, 2004.
> 
> • Mossman, J. (ed.): ‘Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Euripides’, published by Oxford University Press, 2003.
> 
> • Scodel, R.: ‘Sophocles’, Twayne Publishers, 1984.
> 
> • Segal, C.: ‘Interpreting Greek Tragedy: Myth, Poetry, Text’, Cornell University Press, 1986.
> 
> • Segal, E. (ed.): ‘Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy’, published by Oxford University Press, 1983.
> 
> • Sophocles: ‘The Three Theban Plays’, translated by Robert Fagles, published by Penguin Classics, 1984.
> 
> • Stinton, T.C.W.: ‘Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy’, published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.
> 
> • Walker, J.: ‘Theseus and Athens’, published by Oxford University Press, 1995.
> 
> • Whallon, W.: ‘Problem and Spectacle – Studies in the Oresteia’, published by Heidelberg, 1980.
> 
> • Winnington-Ingram, R.P.: ‘Studies in Aeschylus’, published by Cambridge University Press, 1983.


End file.
